With Omar now officially out of the way, Abu Bakr’s argument potentially holds more weight and will likely play a role in recruitment of jihadists to the Islamic State fold in Central and South Asia. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the Taliban, or its Deobandi school of jurisprudence is finished, but it does mean that the militant landscape both regionally and worldwide is about to experience shift quite dramatically.
But I fear I am not as sanguine as you are about the possibilities of finding genuine opposition to radicalism. Some form of intolerance, and acceptance of violence, seems to pervade so many Muslim communities around the globe. You say, “there are many voices, Muslim voices in this country that condemn ISIS and condemn it absolutely.” That is undoubtedly true, but Muslim voices openly condemning radicalism remain muted, especially within the more closely knit communities, not least those where hate preachers still lecture in the mosques and intolerant literature is still to be found. As you yourself say, “we don’t hear those [voices] in the public media very often.” You add that “many of the Muslim leaders are deeply, deeply concerned about this.” But rather more Muslim leaders, especially those from Deobandi, Salafi, Wahhabi, Muslim Brotherhood and similar circles do not seem at all concerned.
Yohanan Friedmann has made it clear in his book Tolerance and Coercion in Islam that a majority of Muslim scholars throughout history have interpreted the exclusivist verses of Quran more literally than the inclusivist verses. Thousands of deoband ulema from Pakistan, on the dictates of Mufti Mahmud, crossed the porous Durand Line to witness the oath ceremony and to lend it credence of their self-appointed Ameer-ul-Momineen, Mullah Umar, writes Ahmed Rashid in his book Taliban. Traditional Islam has, throughout history, retrieved its support from isolationist verses. As a reason of this, the concept of the Ummah stands tall and impregnable till today.